More Than Friends: Popularity on Facebook and its Role in Impression Formation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
More Than Friends: Popularity on Facebook
and its Role in Impression Formation∗
Scott, Graham G
Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley Campus, Paisley, UK
PA1 2BE
Social networking sites such as Facebook are becoming increasingly popular and important but it
remains unclear which aspects of profiles convey information used to form impressions. This study
expands on research investigating the role of popularity online and its impact on perceptions of targets’
personality and appearance. Facebook profile owners’ popularity was manipulated via number of
friends and photos, and type of wall activity. Participants were 102 undergraduates who viewed 4
Facebook profiles (a popular and unpopular male and female) and judged the individuals represented
by each. Popular targets were perceived to be more socially and physically attractive, extroverted and
approachable than unpopular targets. Findings mirror offline effects and provide clues as to how
profiles are examined and information extracted.
Key words: Facebook, popularity, impression formation, social attractiveness, physical attractiveness,
computer-mediated communication, social networking.
doi:10.1111/jcc4.12067
The past decade has seen an explosion in the use and popularity of social networking sites (SNSs).
Naturally, researchers have become increasingly interested in how individuals represent themselves
online, how these personas are perceived by others, and how this influences both on- and offline
behavior. A literature is thus emerging focused on investigating which aspects of online personas
are used to form impressions of others (Walther & Parks, 2002). Of particular interest has been
which personality traits are most salient in online personas and how perceptions of these influence
the overall impression formed of a target individual. This study seeks to expand existing knowl-
edge by manipulating popularity on Facebook profiles and measuring profile owners’ perceived
personality.
Facebook is the medium chosen for the present investigation as it is the world’s largest SNS with
over 800 million users. It is consistently the second most visited site after Google in both the US and UK,
even moving to number one on certain days in the past 2 years (Arthur, 2010; Kiss, 2011). Although
used primarily to keep in touch with existing acquaintances (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007) users
often meet new friends via the site, initiating relationships based on judgments made after exposure to
individuals’ online personas (Donath & Boyd, 2004). Around 15% of Facebook networks are comprised
of people who have never met in person (Stefanone, Lackaff, & Rosen, 2011).
∗ Accepted by previous editor Maria Bakardjieva
358 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication AssociationFacebook is also playing an increasingly important role in real-world affairs. Activity on the site, such
as the viewing and updating of one’s own profile, has been associated with increased levels of self-esteem
(Gonzales & Hancock, 2011), and its use has also proven beneficial for students connecting with academic
peers (Kalpidou, Costin, & Morris, 2011). Additionally, almost 40% of employers use Facebook to gain
information on job candidates and information disclosed on-line has been shown to influence both
the likelihood of an applicant being offered an interview, and their potential starting salary (Bohnert
& Ross, 2010). Given the site’s widespread popularity and use, Facebook seems to be the ideal medium
through which we can continue to assess the representation and perception of personality online.
On- and Offline Impression Formation
When making initial offline judgments of individuals we tend to construct our impressions around
certain key, salient features. This was perhaps most famously demonstrated in the ‘what is beautiful is
good’ literature (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972) which showed physically attractive individuals to be
universally rated higher on dimensions of social competence and interpersonal ease than unattractive
ones (Bassili, 1981; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). The highly salient factor of physical
attractiveness has been associated with, for example, altruism, sensitivity, warmth, popularity, sincerity,
and kindness (Walther, Van Der Heide, Hamel, & Shulman, 2009). It should be noted that this halo
effect is not all-encompassing: No correlation exists between physical attractiveness and measures of
‘integrity’ or ‘concern for others’ such as trustworthiness (Eagly et al., 1991: Dion, 1981) although
there are gender differences on such dimensions, with women considered more trustworthy than men
(e.g., Buchan, Croson & Slonick, 2008; Pearson, 1982). Physical attractiveness is therefore related to
only specific aspects of ‘goodness’, so initial impressions of physically attractive individuals will include
assumptions of many, but not all, positive traits.
A number of the traits associated with physical attractiveness have also been found to correlate
with each other, e.g., popularity, another salient aspect of an individual’s character, naturally correlates
with a number of positive characteristics such as attractiveness, leadership skills, humor, extroversion,
academic achievement, and teachers’ favor (Babad, 2001). Popularity and extroversion are both related
to happiness, but not physical attractiveness (Holder and Coleman, 2008). In a lab-based study males
who were depicted as being more popular because they were being ‘smiled at’ by women were rated
as more attractive by female participants, but less attractive by male participants, than nonsmiled at
targets (Jones, DeBruine, Little, Burriss, & Feinberg, 2007). Impressions such as these have been shown
to influence behavior, with more attractive individuals approached and engaged in conversation more
often than unattractive ones (Prestia, Silverston, Wood, & Zigarmi, 2002).
Evidence suggests that in online environments we also form initial impressions based on the most
salient features of a persona, but there has been debate concerning the extent to which this occurs and
the mechanisms behind it. Early models advocated a ‘Cues Filtered Out’ (CFO) perspective, speculating
that virtual environments lacked the capacity to transmit the information necessary to formulate
adequate impressions of others (Culnan & Markus, 1987). This was soon replaced by models which
advocated a significant transfer of personality information via computer-mediated communication,
albeit in a manner somewhat stunted when compared to real world transmission. Early experiments
typically investigated task-focused communication in text-only, chat-room-like environments, but the
theories they generated have evolved and can be applied to current social networking.
The Social Identification/ Deindividuation (SIDE) model (Lee & Spears, 1991; 1995) speculated that
participants in CMC environments would, due to a lack of individuating cues available, anonymize their
partners and place an over-reliance any available social cues. The extra weight afforded these would lead
to a stereotyped conception of the target being formed, and an exaggerated final impression. The social
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Association 359information processing theory (Walther, 1993) focused on the rate at which impression-relevant cues
are exchanged during social interaction, pointing out that this will be considerably slower online than
offline. It stated that accurate impressions of others could and would be formed in virtual environments,
but that these would develop slowly.
From these two theories there developed the hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996; 1997). This
hypothesized that, in virtual environments, deindividuated individuals will form stereotyped impres-
sions of others, leading to overattribution, but such impressions will take longer to form than in
offline environments and the cues used to form them will not necessarily be the same. In a 5 minute
figure-matching task participants interacting via an online chat system rated their partner on fewer traits
than the face-to-face participants, but the intensity of these ratings were higher Hancock and Dunham
(2001). So although overall impression formation was impaired in online vs. offline interactions, the
impressions which were formed were stronger. Markey and Wells (2002) also demonstrated that judges
were capable of making accurate personality judgments after interacting with individuals online.
This shows that impressions of others can be formed through only online interaction, but it
tells us nothing of which specific cues are used to accomplish this. Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, and
Morris (2002) showed that, in offline environments, personality can be manifested through identity
claims (symbolic statements made by individuals) and behavioral residue (traces of behavior left
unintentionally) that, when taken together, lead to a reasonably accurate assessment of personality
based on physical spaces (targets’ dorm rooms). The advent of personal web pages allowed the separation
of these two mechanisms as such sites were formulated entirely by single individuals, and therefore
contained only identity claim information. Vazire and Gosling (2004) reported high levels of consensus
and accuracy when comparing judges’ ratings of personal web page owners’ personalities with the
ratings of informants, and of the owners themselves. Impressions formed by judges were as accurate
as impressions formed based on judgments of personal physical space, indicating that identity claims
on personal websites could be inferred to accurately portray personality and are not merely tools for
impression management (Schlenker, 1980).
Facebook and other SNSs differ from personal websites in that they also contain behavioral residue
from which viewers can gather information. While much of what users upload themselves falls under
the category of identity claims (e.g., personal information, ‘status updates’), much Facebook content
also constitutes behavioral residue (others’ can upload photos of individuals and write on their walls,
and to become friends both parties must agree). The information available on Facebook appears to
more accurately reflect real-world physical space than personal websites, and should therefore provide
sufficient cues not only for impressions of profile owners to be formed, but for judges to achieve high
levels of accuracy.
Back et al. (2010) found that the personal information available on Facebook (images, personal
thoughts, examples of social behavior) conveyed an accurate, valid impression of personality. They had
participants in America and Europe rate targets on the Big Five personality factors and found a high
correlation with the self-rating produced by the targets, and ratings of targets by their acquaintances.
In another study Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, and Gaddis (2011) found relationships
between different personality dimensions and self-reported behaviors on Facebook, as well as a link
between the dimensions of extroversion and openness and observable information on Facebook profiles
(extroversion: number of photos and friends, words in the ‘about me’ section, number of wall posts,
groups, networks; openness: number of photos and groups), demonstrating that personality influences
online activity and can be accurately interpreted by observers. Facebook users utilize the site not
to idealize themselves in a virtual environment (the idealized virtual-identity hypothesis: Manago,
Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan, 2008), but to extend the personality and social connections they
360 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Associationalready possess offline (the extended real-life hypothesis: Ambady & Skowronski, 2008; Vazire &
Gosling, 2004).
The focus of impression formation on SNSs to this point has centered on the impact of individual
aspects of online profiles. When manipulated in isolation, these have been shown to have a significant
impact on impressions formed of profile owners (e.g., Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, & Walther,
2008; Utz, 2010; Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008). The physical attractiveness
of a profile owner, for example, has been found to be directly influenced by the beauty of their
friends with high friend attractiveness leading to elevated ratings of target beauty (Walther et al., 2008).
Additionally, content of Facebook wall posts influence perceptions of targets with references to positive
sociable behavior on the part of the target increasing perceived social attractiveness, but references to
targets’ negative social behavior dependent on target gender. When posts made reference to male targets
engaging in negative social behavior (excessive drinking and philandering) their ratings of physical
attractiveness increased. Similar posts on the walls of female targets resulted in them being rated as less
attractive (Walther et al., 2008). Perceived online attractiveness is important as it influences behavior,
e.g., individuals are more likely to make friends with members of the opposite sex if they consider them
attractive (Wang, Moon, Kwon, Evans, & Stefanone, 2010).
Popularity on Facebook
One very salient feature of online personas, particularly on SNSs, is popularity, a potential indicator of
attractiveness (e.g., Eagly et al., 1991; Tong et al., 2008). As people prefer to associate with those they
consider attractive then, conversely, those who are seen to be popular should be considered beautiful
(Tong et al., 2008). Several studies have attempted to discern which aspects of Facebook profiles convey
target popularity but a consensus has yet to be reached. Although Zywica and Danowski (2008) reported
previous findings showing number of friends and wall length to be important, they found that the main
indicators of popularity are number of friends, number of posts others placed on the profile wall and
number of photos tagged (all a combination of identity claims and behavioral residue). These factors
are highly correlated on real Facebook profiles (see Pilot Study in the Methods section).
Number of friends seems to be a strong indicator of popularity. On Hyves, a Dutch SNS, targets
were judged more popular when they had more friends (∼300 vs.associated with seven separate profile features. By implementing a stronger popularity manipulation
it is predicted that significantly higher ratings of both social and physical attractiveness for popular
compared to unpopular targets will be obtained.
The Current Study
The aim of the current study was to assess how popularity represented on Facebook profiles influenced
impressions viewers formed of targets, including their social- and physical-attractiveness. Popularity of
targets was manipulated via the three aspects of profiles found to indicate popularity by Zywica and
Danowski (2008): number of friends, number of photos, and self- vs. others’ (i.e., friends’) wall activity.
Number of photos and friends correlate with the personality dimension of extroversion (number of
photos also correlated with openness; Gosling et al., 2011). The third factor of ‘posts by others’ was not
linked to any personality measure in Gosling et al.’s study, but users commenting on others’ page – a
prominent feature of unpopular targets in the current study – was linked to trait extroversion.
Popular targets had around 300 friends, unpopular targets just under 100. Tong et al. (2008)
reported a curvilinear relationship between number of friends and popularity with 300 at the apex; we
would thus expect profiles with either 100 or 500 friends to represent unpopular targets successfully. In
our pilot study, number of friends, number of photos, and others’ wall activity were highly correlated.
Unpopular targets were portrayed in the current study as being tagged in fewer photos, and having a
greater proportion of self-authored content on their wall, than popular targets. Because no curvilinear
effects have been demonstrated between popularity and either of these variables (as is the case with
number of friends) it was decided that target profiles would appear more realistic, and the experiment
more ecologically valid, if they had a smaller than optimum (∼100), not a higher than optimum (∼500),
number of friends. Friends’ attractiveness remained constant. Previous research identified wall length
as an indicator of popularity (Zywica & Danowski, 2008), but on Facebook wall activity is ordered
chronologically and naturally curtailed after a certain length. All genuine Facebook pages are therefore
of equal length when initially loaded, and so current stimuli were controlled for length.
We measured social- and physical-attractiveness, extroversion, approachability, and trustworthi-
ness. It was predicted that, as in Tong et al. (2008), popular targets would be rated as more socially
attractive and more extroverted than unpopular targets. Because of the stronger popularity manipu-
lation employed in the current study we also predicted that popular targets would be rated as more
physically attractive.
In offline impression formation, personality attributes associated with social competence and
physical attractiveness are correlated (e.g., social attractiveness, popularity: Dion, 1981; Eagly et al.,
1991). They also influence behavior, with attractive individuals more likely to be approached and
engaged with (e.g., Prestia et al., 2002). If the mechanisms behind impression formation respond in a
similar manner to online as offline cues, as has been suggested by models such as the hyperpersonal
model (Walther, 1996; 1997), we would predict popular targets to be rated as more approachable
than unpopular targets but, as trustworthiness falls under ‘‘integrity,’’ which is typically not associated
with physical attractiveness or social competence (Eagly et al., 1991), popularity was not expected to
influence ratings of trustworthiness. It was predicted, however, that female targets would be rated as
more trustworthy than male targets as has previously been demonstrated offline (Buchan et al., 2008).
Methods
Pilot Study
In order to discern the degree to which the three manipulated factors were correlated, a survey
was carried out on 600 profile pages. Targets were systematically selected as friends of friends of
362 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Associationthe experimenters, but not individuals with whom the experimenter himself was friends (to avoid sampling bias and ensure all information gathered was freely available online). For each Facebook profile the targets’ gender and age were recorded, as were their number of friends, number of photos, and the proportion of their wall activity (from the most recently posted 7 items) which was self- vs. other-authored. Of those on which number of friends, number of photos tagged, and profile wall were all visible (N = 179, of which 112 were female, age: m = 26.66, SD = 2.72), Pearson’s correlations were carried out. Analysis revealed these three factors to all be highly correlated: friends & photos [r(178)=0.597, p
Targets were always either 20 or 21 years of age, attended the same University as participants, and
originated from a town in the same country (specific details were counterbalanced). The content of
posts were counterbalanced within Target Gender condition (they could not be fully counterbalanced
as some posts were gender-specific, i.e., ‘‘Hey doll, haven’t seen you in ages!’’). The content of posts
were also counterbalanced so all posts appeared in popular and unpopular profiles, and as target-
and friend-authored statements. The length and ‘positivity’ of wall posts were controlled across all
conditions. Facebook advertisements (right column) were also fully counterbalanced and the order in
which participants viewed the Facebook profiles was systematically varied.
After viewing each profile participants completed a questionnaire rating the profile owner
(target) on the following 7-point semantic differentials (socially attractive–socially unattractive,
physically attractive–physically unattractive, approachable–unapproachable, extroverted–introverted,
trustworthy–untrustworthy, and popular–unpopular). Such bipolar single-item measures have been
used in several recent studies (e.g., Bohnert & Ross, 2010; Campbell, Neuert, Friesen, & McKeen, 2010;
Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009; Paunonen, 2006; Smith et al., 2009) and have proved to
be as reliable as many multi-item alternatives (e.g., Wood & Hampson, 2005). The order in which the
items were presented to participants in the questionnaire was systematically varied.
Procedure
The study conformed to all ethical guidelines set out by the school’s ethics committee and informed
consent was obtained. Participants were tested individually in a quiet room on campus. Upon arrival
participants were told that they would be presented with the images of four Facebook profiles on screen
and should study each profile for as long as they felt was necessary to form an impression. After studying
each profile the window was closed and participants asked to fill out the questionnaire. The experiment
lasted approximately 15 minutes, after which participants were thanked and fully debriefed.
Results
A 2 (Participant Gender: Male, Female) X 2 (Target Popularity: Popular, Unpopular) x 2 (Target
Gender: Male, Female) mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using statistics
package SPSS 18 on scores from each of the five semantic differentials: Social Attractiveness, Physical
Attractiveness, Approachability, Extroversion, and Trustworthiness. To ensure the manipulation was
successful an ANOVA was also carried out on Perceived Popularity. All main effects and interactions are
reported in Table 1 and all group means and standard deviations are reported in Table 2. Main effects
of popularity are displayed in Fig 1.
There was a main effect of Target Popularity with popular targets (M=6.002, SD=0.864) rated
more popular than unpopular targets (M=3.880, SD=1.475). All other effects were not significant [all
ps>0.15]. This demonstrates that the manipulation was successful.
There was a main effect of Target Popularity on both Social and Physical attractiveness with
popular targets (Social: M=5.206, SD=1.341; Physical: M=5.031, SD=1.029) rated more attractive
than unpopular targets (Social: M=4.020, SD=1.457; Physical: M=4.174, SD=1.364).
There was a main effect of Target Popularity on Approachability with popular targets (M=4.681,
SD=1.567) rated more approachable than unpopular targets (M=4.315, SD=1.567). There was also
a main effect of Target Gender with females (M=4.683, SD=1.681) rated more approachable than
males (M=4.314, SD=1.453), and a marginal main effect of Participant Gender with male participants
(M=4.665, SD=1.530) rating targets as marginally more approachable than female participants
(M=4.332, SD=1.582).
364 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication AssociationTable 1 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Target Measures
Perceived Soc. Phy.
Main effect Pop. Attract. Attract. Approach Extroversion Trustworthiness
Popularity F 275.57∗∗∗ 49.83∗∗∗ 47.32∗∗∗ 5.52∗ 59.57∗∗∗ 2.05
pTable 2 Means (Standard Deviations) of Target Measures
Male Targets Female Targets
Dependent Measure Participant Gender Popular Unpopular Popular Unpopular
Popularity Male 5.80 (1.03) 3.78 (1.53) 6.05 (1.05) 3.95 (1.49)
Female 6.03 (0.73) 4.05 (1.55) 6.13 (0.72) 3.74 (1.37)
Social Male 5.17 (1.30) 4.07 (1.60) 5.20 (1.57) 4.02 (1.65)
Attract. Female 4.98 (1.41) 4.05 (1.36) 5.48 (1.12) 3.93 (1.33)
Physical Male 4.90 (0.92) 3.90 (1.28) 5.02 (1.04) 4.27 (1.38)
Attract. Female 5.00 (1.21) 4.34 (1.56) 5.20 (0.91) 4.18 (1.19)
Approach Male 4.61 (1.32) 4.22 (1.54) 4.95 (1.60) 4.88 (1.66)
Female 4.44 (1.47) 3.98 (1.48) 4.72 (1.82) 4.18 (1.57)
Extroversion Male 4.83 (1.43) 3.56 (1.58) 5.24 (1.48) 3.68 (1.71)
Female 5.20 (1.25) 4.02 (1.59) 5.30 (1.19) 3.74 (1.35)
Trust Male 4.54 (1.36) 4.80 (1.19) 4.80 (1.29) 5.05 (1.22)
Female 4.21 (1.17) 4.49 (1.18) 4.93 (1.22) 4.84 (1.09)
Note: Mean (Standard Deviation) ratings on each dependent measure for popular and unpopular male
and female targets.
Main Effects of Popularity
5.5
Popular Unpopular
5
4.5
Rating /7
4
3.5
3
Soc. Phy. Approachability Extroversion
Attractiveness Attractiveness
Figure 1 Significant main effects of Popularity for perceived Social Attractiveness, Physical Attractive-
ness, Approachability, and Extroversion
as more approachable and trustworthy than males targets. While the difference in trustworthiness was
predicted, that of approachability was unexpected and might relate to off-line stereotypes of males
being dangerous and females communal (Becker, Kenrick, Neuberg, Blackwell, & Smith, 2007; Deaux
& LaFrance, 1998).
Most interesting is the difference in ratings of physical attractiveness between popular and unpopular
targets. By demonstrating that popularity can directly influence perceptions of not only social- but
also physical-attractiveness online, this study adds to similar findings established offline (Babad, 2001;
366 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication AssociationJones et al., 2007) and supports claims that attraction and social acceptance are innately linked (Eagly
et al., 1991; Gross & Crofton, 1977). Perceived popularity, attractiveness, and extroversion (but not
trustworthiness, which is indicative of integrity) appear to be integrated in the interpretation of SNS
personas, and the fact that popularity influenced approachability demonstrates that this group of
traits could directly influence online behavior. The results may also prove useful in determining how
information is extracted from online profiles and impressions of targets constructed.
Tong et al. (2008) suggest that an anchoring effect (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) could account for
their pattern of results. They posit that participants initially notice the number of friends a profile owner
has, use this information to construct a crude impression of their personality (including traits such
as extroversion and attractiveness) and then adjust this based on other, subsequently viewed aspects
of the profile. While this was plausible when only number of friends was manipulated, the fact that
three popularity indicators can lead to changed perceptions of both social and physical attractiveness
in the current experiment would suggest that a more complex strategy is employed which takes into
account multiple features of online personas. That individuals look at number of friends – or any
indicator of popularity – first when viewing profiles is speculation. Indeed, intuition would suggest
that photographs (whether the profile picture of the page owner or a friend’s thumbnail) would be
more likely than any text to draw viewers’ initial attention. It would be interesting to assess profile
viewing strategies in order to evaluate the legitimacy of the anchoring theory, and to examine strategies
of viewers differing in experience, age, and agenda.
It seems more plausible, given the current results, that observers rely on multiple cues to build up
an impression of an individual from their Facebook profile, a suggestion supported by the fact that
personality ratings are associated to many distinct aspects of Facebook profiles (Gosling et al., 2011).
Relevant cues are necessarily different in distinct domains and, just as some types of information are
more prevalent online others, such as physical attractiveness, are less obvious. Individuals rely on both
facial and bodily cues when judging physical attractiveness (Johanson, Raulston, & Rotolo, 2012), not
all of which might be available from a single profile picture and a few smaller thumbnail images, and
nonverbal behavioral cues (also absent in SNS environments) influence impression formation after
only a few seconds of exposure (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993). SNSs provide a limited type and number
of cues on which to base judgments of beauty compared with offline environments. The scarcity of cues
directly indicative of physical attractiveness may necessitate more weight being placed on indicators
of associated positive traits (i.e., social competence). The hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996; 1997) model
proposes that online viewers use any information available to improve their accuracy of understanding.
The fact that such judgments can be altered based on various aspects of wall content (Utz, 2010; Walther
et al., 2009) suggests that viewers can quickly assimilate information from a variety of rather subtle
sources to form quick, concise judgments, although with less cues available than in the real world an
impression may be both slower to form and more exaggerated (Walther, 1996; 1997).
Other findings obtained in the current study also add to knowledge of online impression formation.
As hypothesized, popularity did not influence target trustworthiness. Females, however, were rated
more trustworthy than their male counterparts, a pattern similar to effects typically reported in the
context of source reliability in persuasive messages (Miller & McReynolds, 1973; Pearson, 1982), or
economic game theory (Wilson & Eckel, 2006). Such effects have previously been attributed to halo
effects of attractiveness rather than gender, as women are typically viewed as more attractive than men
(Wilson & Eckel, 2006). As there were no target gender differences in attraction here the results could
simply be in keeping with the female stereotype of trustworthiness (Buchan, Croson, & Solnick, 2008).
Women have also been perceived as more approachable offline (Campbell et al., 2010; Miles, 2009),
possibly because males are potentially more dangerous, being physically bigger and stronger (Becker
et al., 2007), or that females are stereotypically perceived as more communal and affiliative (Deaux &
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Association 367LaFrance, 1998). The latter explanation appears more relevant to the online environment as, unless the
approaching party anticipates a real life meeting, the threat of physical harm is remote. Alternatively, it
might be the case that learned behaviors from the real world are carried into the online domain.
Although these results replicate increased perceptions of social and physical attractiveness related
to popularity in offline domains (e.g., Babad, 2001, Jones et al., 2007), it is unclear why previous
manipulations of online popularity did not produce similar results. One possible explanation is that
the manipulations used in such studies (e.g., Tong et al., 2008) were not strong enough, but another
concerns the constantly changing face of the Facebook persona. Changes implemented recently, for
example, removed photo album covers and ‘applications’ activity from profiles, and instead included
personal information such as hometown, employer, a selection of photos in which the profile owner had
been tagged, and a more extensive selection of friends’ thumbnail images. It is possible that such cues
contain information more or less relevant to specific personality traits, and so with each metamorphosis
viewers are able to glean more accurate insights into some facets of profile owners’ personalities, but
for other are required to rely on more indirect indicators.
The major contribution of the current paper is to demonstrate the effect that popularity can have
on observers’ impressions of Facebook profile owners. We show for the first time that online popularity
can influence perceived physical attractiveness and approachability and build on previous research
linking the profile features manipulated here to social attractiveness (Tong et al., 2008) and extroversion
(Gosling et al., 2011), suggesting that the same mechanisms employed in offline impression formation
are present when basing decisions on online cues. This was done using realistic stimuli where not only
one aspect of profiles was manipulated, but several indicators of popularity covaried as they do in reality.
Unlike previous studies employing similar methodologies, the popularity manipulation comprises
three separate cues rather than one single aspect of the Facebook profile. This is an important
distinction as, increasingly, specific individual cues may not be visible on the profile page of every
individual Facebook user. Nosko, Wood, and Molema (2010) reported that, on SNSs, users tend to
only disclose around 25% of potential information. Our pilot correlation of Facebook users included
only those on whose wall the three variables manipulated in this study were visible. This was less than
30% of pages sampled (179/600).
These findings are perhaps due to an increasing awareness of privacy issues surrounding SNSs which
conflicts with the main purpose of the sites – to promote content-sharing and disclosure between users
(Stutzman & Kramer- Duffield, 2010). Although many aspects of Facebook profiles being hidden from
nonfriends, sensitive and personal information continues to be disclosed within the remaining aspects
of the profile. According to the Hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996; 1997) model this could lead to an even
further polarized view of the profile owner, as their persona is conveyed through a very small, overrelied
upon number of cues.
Given the decreasing homogeny in Facebook pages and the consequent increase in the variation of
cues available to observers, the current study represents an important step in determining what effect
the dimension of online popularity, as defined by multiple cues rather than only a single cue, can exert.
By determining what impact a particular personality dimension (e.g., popularity) has on impression
formation, this knowledge can be applied to a variety of profiles which may contain many, but not all,
cues which are known to comprise that factor (e.g., number of friends and number of photos, but not
wall activity).
Despite the advances these findings contribute to the area, and their potential impact on future
research, there are some experimental limitations which must be addressed. One is the fact that,
because the manipulation varied three factors simultaneously, thus being high in ecological validity, it is
impossible to determine the individual impact of each variable (although previous findings have shown
number of friends to be central to perceptions of popularity: Tong et al., 2008; Utz, 2010; Zywica &
368 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication AssociationDanowski, 2008). Although popular targets were perceived more positively than unpopular targets on
a number of measures, it is impossible to establish the individual impact of the additional manipulated
cues. To determine the strength and relevance of each cue it will be necessary to manipulate them in
isolation, or to have a large number of genuine profiles rated and use regression analysis to determine
the cues most indicative of various personality factors. It must also be noted that both number of photos
and wall activity may not have a straightforward linear correlation with popularity (e.g., number of
friends shows a curvilinear relationship with popularity and extroversion, Tong et al., 2008) although
determining this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Another possible limitation is the use of single-item measures to assess the dependent variables.
While this is the norms for some of the traits measured in the current study (trustworthiness: e.g.,
Smith et al., 2009; approachability: e.g., Campbell et al., 2010), multi-item measures do exist for social-
and physical attractiveness (e.g., McCroskey & McCain, 1974) and extroversion (e.g., Costa & McCrae,
1992) and could be employed in future studies.
Finally, the results of the current study cannot necessarily be generalized to all users of Facebook.
The majority of participants in this study were young adults and all were active Facebook users. Older
adults hold different attitudes towards SNSs than younger users (e.g., Nosko, Wood, & Molema,
2010), it could be the case that they also utilize different viewing strategies and rely on different cues
to form impressions. Similarly, novice or occasional users of the site may employ different strategies
to frequent users. This may be especially important for issues relating to employability, as employers,
who may or may not be active users themselves, will be viewing profiles with the specific agenda of
determining certain qualities about individual, e.g., the employability of prospective employees. In
such cases alternative strategies may be employed than those used to form general impressions.
In conclusion, popularity can impact perceptions of not only social attractiveness, but also physical
attractiveness, on SNSs. Popularity also influenced extroversion and approachability, demonstrating
the relationships between attractiveness and social competency. This was based on a manipulation of
number of friends, photos, and others’ wall activity on Facebook profiles, three variables which naturally
correlate and indicate popularity (Zywica & Danowski, 2008). Findings also provided in insight into
possible strategies adopted by viewers to extract information from Facebook profiles. This is important
as, increasingly, individuals are becoming more selective in the information they include in their online
personas, resulting in an increase in the variety of cues present on Facebook profiles.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Gillian Bruce, Prof. Paddy O’Donnell, and Dr. Sara Sereno for their
advice in the preparation of this manuscript.
References
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute – Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of
nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3),
431–411.
Ambady, N., & Skowronski, J. (Eds.). (2008). First impressions. New York: Guilford.
Arthur, C. (2010, March 15). Facebook passes Google as most viewed site in US in past week. The
Guardian Online. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010 mar/15/
facebook-passes-google-share-us.
Babad, E. (2001). On the conception and measurement of popularity: more facts and some straight
conclusions. Social Psychology of Education, 5(1), 3–29.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Association 369Back, M.D., Stopfer, J.M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S.C., Egloff, B. and Gosling, S.D. (2010).
Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self- idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3),
372–374.
Bassili, J. N. (1981). The attractiveness stereotype: Goodness or glamour? Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 2(4), 235–252.
Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Blackwell, K. C., & Smith, D. M. (2007). The confounded
nature of angry men and happy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 179–190.
Bohnert, D.B., & Ross, W.H. (2010). The influence of social networking web sites on the evaluation of
job candidates. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 341–347.
Buchan, N.R., Croson, R.T.A., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior
and beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3–4),
466–476.
Campbell, D.W., Neuert, T., Friesen, K.B., & McKeen, N.A. (2010). Assessing social approachability:
Individual differences, in-group biases, and experimental control. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 42(4), 254–263.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI- R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Culnan, M.J., & Markus, M.L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K. Roberts,
& L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender (4th ed). In Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. & Lindzey, G. (Eds.)
The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 788–827). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dion, K. K. (1981). Physical attractiveness, sex roles and heterosexual attraction. In M. Cook (Ed.),
The bases of human sexual attraction (pp. 3–22). London: Academic Press.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M.A. Smith &
P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York: Routledge.
Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R.D., Makhijani, M.G., & Longo, L.C. (1991). What is beautiful is good,
but . . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological
Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends’’: Exploring the
relationship between college students’ use of online social friends networks and social capital.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Gonzales, A.L., & Hancock, J.T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to
Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(1–2),79-83.
Gosling, S.D., Augustine, A.A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011). Manifestations of
personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable
profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 483–488.
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality
judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3),
379–398.
Gross, A.E., & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Sociometry, 40(1), 90–96.
Hancock, J.T., & Dunham, P.J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication
revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication Research, 28(3),
325–347.
370 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication AssociationHolder, M.D., & Coleman, B. (2008). The contribution of temperament, popularity, and physical
appearance to children’s happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 279–302.
Johanson, P.K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012). More than just a pretty face and a hot body:
Multiple cues in mate-choice. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 174–184.
Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M., Little, A.C., Burriss, R.P., & Feinberg, D.R. (2007). Social transmission of
face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 274(1611), 899–903.
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of
undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(4),183–189.
Kiss, J. (2011, June 30). Facebook began as a geek’s hobby. Now it’s more popular than Google. The
Guardian Online. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/ 04/
facebook-mark-zuckerberg-google (Retrieved June 30, 2011).
Lee, M.R., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation, and group
decision-making. International Journal of Man–machine Studies, 34, 283–301.
Lee, M.R., & Spears, R. (1995). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–342.
Manago, A.M., Graham, M.B., Greenfield, P.M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self- presentation and
gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 446–458.
Markey, P.M., & Wells, S.M. (2002). Interpersonal perception in internet chat rooms. Journal of
Research in Personality, 36, 134–146.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech
Monographs, 41, 261–266.
Miles, L.K. (2009) Who is approachable? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 262–266.
Miller, G.R., & McReynolds, M. (1973). Male chauvinism and source competence: A research note.
Speech Monographs, 40, 154–155.
Naumann, L.P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. (2009). Personality judgments based on
physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(12), 1661–1671.
Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social networking
profiles: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 406–418.
Paunonen, S.V. (2006) You are honest, therefore I like you and find you attractive. Journal of Research
in Personality, 40(3), 237–249.
Prestia, S., Silverston, J., Wood, K., & Zigarmi, L. (2002). The effects of attractiveness on popularity; an
observational study of social interaction among college students. Perspectives in Psychology, Spring,
2002.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Smith, F.G., Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., DeBruine, L.M., Welling, L.L.M., Vukovic, J., & Conway, C.A.
(2009). Hormonal contraceptive use and perceptions of trust modulate the effect of relationship
context on women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 7(3), 195–210.
Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2008) We’re all stars now: Reality television, Web 2.0, and
mediated identities. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia
(HYPERTEXT ’08). 19,107-112.
Stutzman, F., & Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010). Friends only: Examining a privacy-enhancing behavior in
Facebook. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
(1–4),1553-1562.
Tong, S.T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J.B. (2008). Too much of a good thing? The
relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3),531–549.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Association 371Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130. Utz, S. (2010) Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends , and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 314–335. Vazire, S., & Gosling, S.D. (2004). E-perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 87(1), 123–132. Walther, J.B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381–398. Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Walther, J.B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342–369. Walther, J.B., & Parks, M.R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer- mediated communication and relationships. In M.L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L.M., & Shulman, H.C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook., Communication Research, 36, 229–252. Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S.T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28–49. Wang, S.S., Moon, S., Kwon, K.H., Evans, C.A., & Stefanone, M.A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendships on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 226–234. Welling, L.L.M., Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M., Conway, C.A., Law Smith, M.J., Little, A.C., Feinberg, D.R., Sharp, M.A., & Al-Dujaili, E.A.S. (2007). Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attraction to masculine faces. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 156–161. Wilson, R.K., & Eckel, C.C. (2006). Judging a book by its cove: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Psychology Quarterly, 59(2), 189–202. Wood, S.A., & Hampson, S.E. (2005). Measuring the big five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality, 19(5), 373–390. Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1–34. About the Author Graham Scott (graham.scott@uws.ac.uk) is a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of the West of Scotland. His research interests include the processing of emotional language and impression formation on social networking sites. Address: Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley Campus, Paisley, UK, PA1 2BE. 372 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 358–372 © 2014 International Communication Association
You can also read
